From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Apr 05 2003 - 22:13:54 BST
Dear Rick, Platt and Sam (mainly), with a note to Matt K.,
This is a belated contribution to the discussion of the quality of polygamy
and a reply to especially your views as expressed 16 Mar 2003 17:10:37 -0500
(Rick) and 17 Mar 2003 08:31:47 -0500 (Platt). It is also an attempt to
apply my MoQ to marriage in general, because that's the context of my views
on polygamy. So Sam may be interested too, having noted his interest in
marriage dating back to at least his 4 Jan 2002 12:06:24 -0000 post.
For Matt: even though I use the word 'metaphysics' (in MoQ), I agree that it
should not be understood as a 'meta-narrative' that 'sits behind all other
narratives and vocabularies', but as a 'local narrative'. In other words: I
recognize (like Pirsig) that it is not the only metaphysics possible. What
about seeing it as a 'frame story', an attempt to create a context in which
as many other stories as possible get a meaning (but never all)?
'Polygamy', like 'marriage' in general refers for me to both a social and an
intellectual pattern of value.
The social pattern of value is that people show in their behavior
recognition that a couple (trio, quartet, whatever) belong together. Others
respect their exclusive dealings with each other and they themselves show
special attention to each other.
The intellectual pattern of value consists of the systems of ideas used to
motivate, maintain, strengthen etc. such behavior. Part of that intellectual
pattern of value can be marriage contracts sanctioned by church or state law
and the passing on of marriage customs via stories and/or instructions
telling people what they should do.
These patterns of value contribute to the stability of lower level patterns
of value.
The young of the species homo sapiens need a long period of protection and
acquiring know-how before they can survive more or less by themselves and
reproduce. Marriage (the social pattern of value) contributes to the
survival of the species (the biological pattern of value) by maintaining
stable relations among protecting adults alias role-models (both their own
parents and other members of the group in which they live) and by limiting
potentially violent competition for sexual partners.
When people come to live in larger groups, when population density rises
and when (potential) relations in a society become more complex and
abundant, marriage as a social pattern of value becomes more and more
vulnerable and needs reinforcement by the intellectual pattern of value
'marriage' refers to.
These patterns of value also offer (some) freedom from lower level patterns
of value.
Marriage (the social pattern of value) creates (together with other social
patterns of value) stable societies that can survive independently from each
other. Certain marriage habits (either males or females always 'marrying
out') prevent inbreeding. Stable marriages make for stable family relations
which enable recognition of 'blood ties' as basis for group loyalty. The
cumulative effect of these social patterns of value is, that societies can
afford to compete with each other (even violently) and thus speed up
evolution (e.g. by adapting technology to
new ecosystems during migration) WITHOUT BOTHERING ABOUT THE SURVIVAL OF THE
SPECIES AS A WHOLE. 'Thanks' to the social level homo sapiens could become
maybe the only species that fights others of its own species in order to
kill them and with an 'intra-species struggle for survival of the fittest'.
The resulting social evolution also freed man from the rigor of biological
struggle for survival, however.
Marriage (the intellectual pattern of value) is part of an 'ideology' (in a
broad and non-derogatory sense of the word) that makes people consciously
strive to 'behave' themselves. Ideology can thus re-inforce social patterns
of value. (The 'Victorianism' Pirsig describes in 'Lila' is -in his own
words from 'Lila's Child', footnote 45 in my version- 'an intellectual
justification of existing social patterns'.) To the extent that it attains
the same ends (protecting the young, limiting violence etc.) with conscious
means it can free people from rigid social patterns of value. Lifelong
faithfulness to one partner, limiting 'marriage' as a social pattern of
value to heterosexual couples that can produce clear 'blood ties' etc. may
not be necessary anymore when society (consciously) creates other ways to
attains these ends, e.g. by making 'marriage' a kind of contract that can be
terminated when specific conditions are met. 'Social level marriage' cannot
accommodate 'divorce', 'intellectual level marriage' can (if it wants to).
Polygamous marriage can perform these roles (contributing to stability of
and freedom from lower level patterns of value) just as monogamous marriage
can. In some situations it does better (e.g. when the balance of males and
females is disturbed by war or other disasters), in others worse.
Even old-testamentic law legitimized polygamous marriage in specific
circumstances: Deuteronomy 25:5 'If brothers are living together and one of
them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her
husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a
brother-in-law to her.'
I think Rick exaggerates the risk of social unrest and instability because
of polygamy. In practice the average amount of spouses per married man in a
society that allows polygamy never rises above 2. Except when some disaster
has changed the balance of males and females, this is normally offset by
habits and norms making sure that males marry at a later age than females.
Females are widowed much more often and usually younger than men and often
remarry. When men may marry more women at the same time (when they have
enough social status and a ripe age), women often marry more men
consecutively during their lifetime. If disasters (of types that
disproportionally hit men) are frequent, polygamous societies may be more
successful and sustainable than monogamous societies by making better use of
the (whole period of) fertility of their females.
The consequence of polygamy is, that young males must control their sexual
urge until they are old enough and have enough status to marry. It may be no
coincidence that polygamy often co-exists with a pattern of value in which
women have to hide themselves for the eyes of men often co-exists.
Against this background an assessment of the relative quality of monogamous
and polygamous marriage depends on one's own viewpoint. I belong to a
society that is held together by social patterns of value in which polygamy
is not accepted. I identify -like almost all Dutch- with an intellectual
pattern of value in which polygamy is rejected (but tolerated in other
societies) and -like most Dutch- with an intellectual pattern of value in
which marrying (or not) is left to individuals to decide (so outside
marriage promiscuity is tolerated). I lived together with my (now) wife for
7 years before we married without meeting with so much as a raised eyebrow.
(We married because it made buying a house more convenient.) My closest
colleague is still unmarried even though she has children only a few years
younger than mine and that is not considered strange either by a lot of
Dutch. Stable relations and fidelity are still the norm for most Dutch,
however, especially when a couple has children under its care, so to some
extent 'marriage', both as a social and as an intellectual pattern of value
still holds, even though 'marriage contracts' are not deemed essential.
Although I experience value in marriage and especially in its monogamous
variety, I recognize that there exist stable societies in which polygamy is
the norm (for its high-status members). I can even imagine societies that
function quite well without any formal marriage, as long as people act
responsibly towards each other also taking into account long-term
consequences of their behavior for others (especially for children). That
responsibility can take a lot of forms and in order to protect a society
against irresponsible members some form of government (either secular or
religious) may have to sanction and/of stimulate some of these forms, but
not necessarily the forms that are normal in my society.
There is more to marriage and polygamy (and to patterns of value in general)
than that however. They not only contribute to the stability of lower level
patterns of value and (in upholding the stability of a pattern at their own
level) to freedom from lower level patterns of value. They also point at
value/quality at the next higher level.
At the social level a pattern of value can point to an intellectual truth
when it harmonizes with an intellectual pattern of value. Social level
marriage and the rituals involved in it can point to something like 'unity
by complementing each other' or 'social harmony' or 'social stability' by
harmonizing with intellectual level marriage. Religious rituals can point to
religious truths by harmonizing with theology and with
Christian/Islamic/Jewish etc. ethics.
At the intellectual level a pattern of value can only point upwards by
harmonizing with evolutionary dynamics, by metaphorically showing us
something about DQ itself.
The 'absolute quality' of patterns of value resides in the 'moon' at the
next higher level which they are pointing at... All other assessments of
their relative value are contentious and dependent on context.
It is only in this sense, of 'pointing to DQ', that monogamy is superior to
polygamy, I think. Any explanation of this intuition risks being challenged.
For me this intuition is linked to
1) The paradox of men and women 'being created equal' although it is
self-evident that they are born quintessentially unequal ('boy or girl'
being the first we look for in a new-born). Why should one of them be put in
an unequal position by polygamy (or polyandry)?
2) The feeling that it is WRONG to make the number of one's spouses, the
'possession' of more wives (or husbands), into a status symbol. Competition
for spouses violates the highest quality experience we know: direct,
personal, intimate relationship between two people.
Going from monogamy to polygamy is simply not the direction we should go
(even if going to polygamy from a situation in which women were even less
equal may have been the direction to go in for instance 7th century Arabia).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 05 2003 - 22:22:24 BST